According to Don Boyle, the totenkopfring was made with a metal roll press with a casted die on top to make the design.

Can you explain to us layman how that works?

Josias,, yeah I've heard the same or very similar.
I mentioned it on another topic and was shot down. I was answered to as if the person knew from fact. I've since learned he didn't..

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

*****


Edited for language and insults. Please read our code of conduct.

quote:

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

Actually process is very simple. It just requires more high qualified workmanship at the beginning to make dies. Complicated it is for modern jewelers who can only do casting.

Gaspare - Yeah, I was also one of those who believed in the casting theme, vs. pressing. In fairness to Craig, he can't be blamed for the belief that they were cast, because among virtually all old-time jewelers, this seems to be the most logical theory.

G,
That's why your one of the best, your ahead of your time!

Mikee, thanks for the kind words. Not ahead but try and be through.. I believe mistakes have been made about certain things..

6 years ago I wanted to finally go ahead and start working on a book about private purchase rings. I had been gathering info etc. I decided to go to NYC and interview a few old time jewelers. I showed each one a 3rd Reich period ring. I asked them how this ring was made back in the late 30's/early 40's.. All said about the same thing, Carved model,,wax pieces put together,,'Investment cast',,made in the round, etc.etc..

I then pulled out this original master die for the ring. They quickly admitted they were wrong..
Now really they were not wrong. It was me. I didn't fully explain everything and that caused the mis-diagnosis..
Anyway,,,I do not believe for one second the HR was Investment Cast,nor rubber molds were used. And, although it could have been made semi circle I don't believe it was. I don't think it was just made, then hand finished and thats it. There were other steps involved that are not usually done for other rings......

I still firmly maintain my opinion that the Totenkopf Ring is cast "in-the-round" versus being cast or die-struck as a strip. Rumors to the contrary, I did NOT go to some discount jewelry mart and interview a 23 year old sales-clerk, to derive my opinion. Josias and I share a common belief (I think), based upon experience: "among virtually all old-time jewelers, [casting-in-the-round] seems to be the most logical theory."

I'm sorry Craig. I even have to jump ship. Don Boyle told me what he knew on Friday. As you know, I also believed they were cast. I didn't ask Don how he knew. He just said that's how they were made. Having said that, if you think about it, once the die was made, rolling blank silver stock with a press would be a breeze, compared to the fuss to cast each ring individually. I don't think myself, Craig, or anyone could be blamed for thinking they were cast, as that method has been so prevalent for so long. But the practicality of the Germans lends credence to this different approach.

Craig,, these are your words off WAF:

"There is an entire building in San Diego called "The Jewelry Exchange" and it is 8 floors filled with jewelry designers. I'm sure there is a similar "hub" in your city. I really did expect a variety of opinions, but down to the man (and woman) they all said the same thing." and - "By the way, my interviews took me to Munich"

You made the same mistake I made a few years ago. You asked a few got answers thought about it and left it at that..
I don't have your book and if there is more or some sort of period documentation, other examples I humbly apologize..


Almost every Tradesmen/Jeweler book from the 30s and 40s whther US or Europe show that commercially made for retail rings were made in the flat. And, thats what the HR is,,it is NOT a one off custom ring,,it was mass produced.

Gaspare: The San Diego Jeweler's Exchange (not Jewelry Exchange), which is ONE of many sources I interviewed, is not a hodge-podge of pimply-face 19 year olds selling jewelry produced in China. It's about 11 floors of established casters, engravers, watchmakers, gemologists, and other persons whose opinion does in fact count. That a few people including yourself have used the word "Jewelry Exchange" as a touchstone for their assault on my book, is a testimony to the weakness of their critique. You may feel free to disagree with my opinion about how Totenkopf Rings were produced, but if you actually take the time to READ my book, you will see that it is a well-formed opinion, that matches with testamonial interviews and physical evidence. Until we find the molds for the ring (or whatever was used to make them), we will not know for sure how they were made, and as I have stated IN THE BOOK if you READ THE BOOK, Gaspare, is that this was my opinion, but a well-reasoned one. Intelligent minds can disagree, and I expect you to honor and understand that. However, Gaspare, stating opinion as fact (like you have done) is one of the surest ways to expose the weakness of your argument. To say that "I made the same mistake you made" is frankly a bit on the arrogant side. I have made no mistake. I merely hold an opinion with which you disagree.

Gaspare: If you wish to discuss this matter further, you may call me or email me. I will not allow myself to become entertainment fodder for the tabloids. Back to the subject of this thread, lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion.

"I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BECOME ENTERTAINMENT FODDER FOR THE TABLOIDS." - Craig, we KNOW you're famous but, you're starting to sound more like Paris Hilton every day.

Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

OK,so which is it?Pressing as you call it and cold rolling are two entirely different processes in metalurgical fabrication,using different equipment and feedstock.
Go pick up an ASTM handbook at your Library.
I had 17yrs plus in the "business" in General Management.
Seiler (yank in uk)

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

Your argument is convincing so far J..what do you think?
(Seems it would be pretty tricky sizing a cast ring? With cold rolled all that is needed is to center the skull with the appropriate length band, leave a void, and weld it.)

Don Boyle said it was a "metal roll press" or "cold rolled metal". That's all he said. The main point is that it wasn't investment cast.

We are beating around the bush here with the problem being everybody is an"Expert" in metal fabrication without comprehending what these
processes are OR the equipment at the time AND indeed STILL being used almost everywhere.
I have two genuine rings (WITH PROVENANCE)
I have ALWAYS been of the opinion the manufacturing process is the simple,cheap,low volume,uncomplicated method known as "Roll Forming Mill"Ideally suited to a relatively small fabricator and used in THE JEWELLERY Business.I was with a Company called General Plate in Attleboro Mass subsequently Texas Instruments Inc.Among many metallurgical exotic
materials produced,the Company was the biggest
supplier of jewellery materials to that Industry.
Attleboro and the surrounding area into Rhode Island was the Pfortzheim of the USA.There were
literally hundreds of Roll Forming Mills AND Jewellery Companies in the area..Robbins,Balfours et al.Your Class Rings
possibly came from there.Don IS essentially correct except for the "Fine tuning of the terminology"OK Schools out...
Seiler (yank in uk)

So was the skull cast? or "squished"
I'd like to be the one to find those die.

I would suspect a "Frugal" German Co.made a simple die,rough pressed a "form" from
the ends or tails of the original feedstock
and simply finished to shape/detail by a hand finisher.IMO
SEiler (yank in uk)
This ring was NOT fabricated by some fancy
investment casting process as purported by an
"Authority"on WAF AND eagerly supported by somebody selling books.

tsk tsk,,,

Those old die must be sitting in some forgotten Swiss safety deposit box?

I assume it is worthless as we all know how the TK rings where made, and the round shape is not a cast for my view. Anyhow why it would be cast when the skull is seperate on the ring and below is the seam line?

Anyhow the source and real info's are in Germany to find and not anywhere else. Trust me the differences for basics are way different around the globe, even for jewlery.

Craig,, You took what others told you as fact and used it to form an opinion/a theory on how the HR was made..That's always doesn't add up to fact or the correct sum.
I have no reason to read your book. I'm not interested in the ring..

Call you to discuss this?!? that's what we have this wonderful forum here for.
Please if you take this all as an 'assault' on you or your book then I really do apologize.. It's really not meant to be...

Yes, lets get back to business. Most mass produced commercially made for retail rings [lets add themed towards the military if you like] made during the period were NOT from a rubber mold nor were they made in the round. I've got my own interviews and findings to go by from the last 6 or 7 years, *and to back them up an amassed collection or period dies, photos and documentation....
*Now the Honor ring is a little different. It is a mass produced ring though!. Looking at it I'd think there was more than the one process on how the design is on the ring...

"lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion."

I would say he knows from his relationship with Mr.Piechel who most know was a employee at the Gahr firm... Don's a great guy. But he really ,for whatever the reason, doesn't want to let all the nuances about how the ring was produced known...

*Robert, Yes, the German had their own ways with certain things. I'd say with jewelry though its pretty much the same as the rest of the world at the time,,not politics,,just sharing in an art

I think in the near future the HR dies, or parts of them, will eventually surface....

No, Gaspare. I took verbal testimony and formed an opinion, that is all - I never claimed it as fact, and neither should anyone else, absent physical proof in the form of molds, dies, or whatever. You DO need to read the book, since you are on record on the forums as criticizing it. And for the record Robert: we all do NOT know how Totenkopf Rings were made . . . we can only form well-reasoned theories. It is fun to speculate, but it is presumptuous for anyone to claim opinion as fact - Robert, Don, myself, Gaspare - anybody. Until we come up with either the mold or the die, all judgements will be merely theories. And if dies surface, or molds surface, that would be great. I don't care if I'm right or wrong with my theory (which many people believe, incidentally). I would love someday to uncover the truth. By the way, does anybody know if Piechl spoke English?

- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

Craig,,Piechl was alive in 2002 as Don set up a deal right here on this forum for a member to buy one of his last reproduction rings. Either he,,or his rep must have spoke english as Don sure doesn't ,nor did the buyer...

Piechl's rings were most likely made using the same molding process I describe in my book, and Josias uses on his reproduction rings. Reason: the early Piechl rings show much greater detail than his later specimens. The likely scenario is that Piechl produced rings from only one mold, and it wore out as he used it.

Regarding Piechl, I assumed he didn't speak English, because all of the correspondence that I have seen from him, to collectors in the States, is in German.

Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sepp:
Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


I certainly agree with Sepp.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gaspare:
- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

WW2 era "rubber" left VERY much to be desired!
It's hard to believe they could cast with this?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion because we are unfortunately not in possession of production manuals or materials. Don has his opinion, I have mine, and there is legitimate disagreement on both sides of the coin. Both sides have made valid arguments, which can be seen by reviewing both GDC and WAF. It's up to observers to form their own conclusions from the arguments presented. However, I believe that to speak in language that suggests that one side is factually correct is not productive. This is the reason I presented my view as just that - one among several legitimate hypotheses.

With regard to the use of rubber or some other material to produce molds from a master - it's not really relevant exactly what material was used. The point is that lost wax-casting, and follow-on casting, has been used since ancient times, with excellent results. There is evidence that it has been used for detail production even in ancient civilizations. Google will provide references to my claim. To suggest that the Germans suddenly forgot what 2000 plus years of casters have known, does not make sense in my view.

But again, exactly how Totenkopf rings were produced is a subject that is open to debate, and I hope that my language has encouraged such conversation.

When I originally formed my opinion as to the TKR construction method, I was going on EXACTLY the same information as Craig. However, once I became aware of the fact that the "roll forming mill" that SEILER described, or similar pressing or stamping device was widely used at that time, then it only seemed logical that this method is infinitely more practical. Put it this way: I would KILL to have such a device, and not have to cast each of my repro TKRings. You only need to look at the incredibly detailed tinnies produced (solid and hollow), to see that they were really into stamped metal. Another factor that we're missing is that this "rubber mold" step that is used in casting created flaws such as mis-shapened bands, casting lines, and other flaws that occur when the wax is forced into these rubber 2-piece molds, and the 2 halves of the mold aren't aligned PERFECTLY. This is why , of the 4 rings I've had cast so far, they're ALL different in overall shape and flaws. Of course, all 4 also have similar flaws as well. The absolute "SAMENESS" of each original TKR also lends evidence that they were NOT cast. As for Herr Peicl, he could have used EITHER method, depending on the availability of equipment to him. Back to the originals - Once you add the fact that Mr. Boyle proclaims they weren't cast, I'd say it was a high probability they weren't. Listen to SEILER on this one.

I offer as evidence on this very topic - an original period WW2 German die for a mass produced ring,,made flat. Also a picture from a period book showing regular rings being made in the flat. Both by the way from a metal master..
It is not just for these 2 rings.. I've had to study report/make comment on well over 100 rings,,and all the same..

You want to talk fancy, multi piece with a bunch of embelishments? ,then yes probably cast from a model and soldered up, hand finished,maybe burnished afterwards or gem set in.

As far as Herr Peicl,,either he knew English or the 2 members on this forum knew German because they both ordered the last of the rings he made.. He knows/knew 100% how the HR ring was made,,and believe what you want but so does Don...

OK - I've seen some distant photos of a Peicl ring. But nothing closeup, and I don't remember seeing the inscription. Anyone care to post closeup pics of their Peicl? TKR?

J. , they were not made as authentic HRs were made. His were one piece lost wax cast rings..
At one time he'd put whatever you wanted in the band to include your name.. One member/ring owner now lives in CZ.
The other member might post if he sees this,,lets hope so..

found these Peichl ring shots on the new forum:
http://worldwarmilitaria.com/f...657&highlight=Peichl


*

I had shared some thoughts privately with others who have encouraged me to post them here.
"The rings were cast round in a rubber mold"

If these were cast in the round what is the purpose of the seam? I've seen rings from size 7 to size 16(American measurment) so were there different size molds?* If you cut these round castings apart to resize them wouldn't the ring now be out of round? Why don't we see other types of cast ring examples with a seam if this was a common practice?
*Also if these were in fact cast round wouldn't you occasionally cast one which was the right size for the order where no resizing was necessary thus making cutting apart and a seam unnecessary? But we all know of no legitimate rings without the seam.
Just some more food for thought.
Jim

Jim - No, it's still possible to cast it in a LARGE size, saw the ring, then file it to a smaller size, squeeze together, and solder. BUT BELIEVE ME - If Don Boyle says it wasn't cast, I'd take him for his word. REMEMBER - This whole cast vs. stamped (or roll pressed)debate was fueled by the MISTAKEN notion that casting was the main method of making "solid" type jewelry. "All" the old-timers, including those I've talked to seem to concur on this theory. HOWEVER, Roll-pressed or stamped jewelry was apparently quite prevelant during this era, and the Germans are masters of not only metallurgy, but all it's applications. Once you've gone through the steps to produce totenkopfrings in production by CASTING, you'll realize that it would be a MILLION times more practical to stamp or "roll press" them while a flat bar. GOOD POINT brought up - the fact that there are no known rings without a seam lends credence to the "stamped out flat" theory. Indeed, my first TKR copy has no seam for this exact reason. It was larger without sizing it. Remember that Don knew Mr. Peicl. Somehow, I can only assume that the subject of manufacturing technique came up at least once.

I don�t disagree that the Germans had a lot of expertise when it came to metal stamping. With changes forced upon them by the need to speed up production and economize for the war effort - using stampings instead of the more traditional forging and machining processes. And could very easily get off topic with some of the things that they did. But to get back to main issue under discussion. There is not a one to one equivalency as to what is available now as compared to 70+ years ago. And believe that things have to taken in the context of what was commonly available during the time that an item was made.

I don�t know if this helps in the discussion or not, but the image posted earlier looked like only 1/2 of a die set. And more specifically, the male or �punch� component of the set. While not perfect. And of course not a TKR. With a little imagination, the image below I think shows what the other half might have looked like (more or less). Besides the missing half, also missing was the die set to make the metal �blanks� that would have been embossed. Or alternately, to shear off the excess. With the thickness of the stamping most likely not exceeding that of the band portion.

There were (and still are) machines such as rolling mills. But with a punch that looks like it has a fairly flat face, and flat back. And being reasonably certain that it was at one time paired with a corresponding die. With all due respect to everyone concerned. How would they have been mounted and used? In the context of the early 1930�s/40�s, with something other than a conventional punch (or coining) press?

Very slightly off topic: For mold alignment problems there are a couple of techniques that I recall (from a long while back) to minimize them. With one of them having to do with the fixtures used to make them. But if aligning molds can be difficult: At worst the process might have to be repeated. But if a set of stamping dies are misaligned. It can not only destroy the dies (which are not cheap). It can also damage the press which is even worse.

If it hasn�t been looked at before, the �NSKK High Leader� dagger thread (re: fake castings) might be of interest. Where casting versus stamping was one of the multiple issues that were discussed. With since the topic ended some additional information having been gathered. FP

NSKK High Leader Thread

Both images side by side.

Hi Fred:
As usual you bring a great deal of technical expertise in the working of metal to the forums. The ONE issue I would like to see addressed is:
"What was the purpose of the joining seam if it wasn't used to size rings die cast from flat stock?"
Please note the no one has come up with a reasonable or any explaination since my original post. I continue to maintain that Don Boyle,Gaspare and many others here are right in their assumption these rings were originally die cast and have seen nothing posted to refute this.

Lost wax casting HAS been around forever, but the fact still remains that a die-stamping or pressing method would be 100 times more practical for mass production of thousands of rings. Not only would it be more expedient, but the "stampings" would be more uniform, and without the typical casting imperfections. I've just told you WHY this method was likely used. CRAIG - Now you tell us WHY casting was used. Simply saying that "it's been around for X number of years" doesn't count. You're now in charge of the Gahr factory. What are the advantages of lost wax casting?

Jim M - There IS only one reason for the seam behind the skull, and that is for sizing. This is true whether the ring is made as a circle or made flat. If it started as a circle, the circle was simply cut, both ends were filed to make them shorter, then pressed together, and soldered. If starting out as a flat bar, the band was most likely fed through a machine which bends it circular, and then it was soldered. Regardless how it started, the final EXACT sizing was hand filed, and placed over a sizing mandrel before soldering.

I just e-mailed Don to ask him how he knows. I find it hard to believe that Don knew Herr Peicl, but never asked him how they were made. Let's see what he says.

Q: �The one issue I would like to see addressed is: What was the purpose of the joining seam ...... ?�

A: �The ..... reason for the seam behind the skull ..... is for sizing ..... whether the ring is made as a circle or made flat .....�.

From individual to individual, finger size is going to vary quite a bit. Most of the rings (of all types) that we see in general circulation that have been sized. Were sized to accommodate the wearer, and have the seams on the bottom where it is the least visible.

With the TKR the seam not only allowed sizing, with the Skull concealing the seam. The uppermost seam location also allowed the symbolism of the exterior design to be preserved intact.

Some of the rest is going to require a little thought to better illustrate some of the issues.

Best Regards to All, Fred

quote:

I just e-mailed Don to ask him how he knows. I find it hard to believe that Don knew Herr Peicl, but never asked him how they were made. Let's see what he says.

PS: Something else that could be asked of him is the exact original German word or expression that was used. Having seen multiple examples where something was misinterpreted. Sometimes with long lasting errors being perpetuated and becoming "facts" that have no actual basis, but keep getting repeated from one generation of collectors to the next. FP

Over the last years there have been many threads, mostly about badges and medals, that have shown items to be reproductions because of casting flaws in the fine detail. Usually minute bubble or blank spaces. I remember a bad NSKK or SS chain for the same reason.

A question from someone who does not collect these:

Would it be possible to cast the detail on these rings with no traces of faults ? I am thinking primarily of the detail of the small skull. Especially the teeth.

Dave

quote:

Over the last years there have been many threads, mostly about badges and medals, that have shown items to be reproductions because of casting flaws in the fine detail. Usually minute bubble or blank spaces. I remember a bad NSKK or SS chain for the same reason.

A question from someone who does not collect these:

Would it be possible to cast the detail on these rings with no traces of faults ? I am thinking primarily of the detail of the small skull. Especially the teeth.

Dave

Dave, As we already know, defects like porosity and related issues are not just a problem with some fakes. But ones that sometimes affect certain industrial applications and there are multiple ways to either defeat or at least minimize their appearance.

So the answer to the question is that: The mere absence of voids is not an absolute indicator that an item is good. But their presence should be a red flag for a much closer look at the item in question.

As for the small details that is really (IMO) a separate topic. And ties in more closely with some earlier comments. Needing some more work to replace some of the information/images that are not my own, or the forums intellectual property. Best Regards, Fred

Dave, perfect pieces are made every day without fault lines , pock marks,,burns, etc. There are technical production shops that deal with permanent mold, die casting, centrifuges,, vacuum,, pressure/injection techniques all the time making a variety of super intricate parts..

To make a HR is actually on the simple side.. It is the cost to make that first one that is prohibited. There are collectors that already have the exact composition of the metals used in the alloy 'batch', so between the 2 a perfect copy could be made..
Luckily shops that do that kind/type of work don't have the time to play around blueprinting up a ring on the computer and all the other steps involved that it would take . They make their real money with government jobs/contracts and research and development work.... Besides, even if you flooded a shop with money to make you the tooling to make a ring, if they caught on even the slightest hint that the item could be used to deceive or a fraudulent practice that would be it, game over, project terminated....

My family is in ring making business for 4generations. I've been making repro Honor rings for a while using die struck method. If interested I can share the process.

This is how it all starts - flat.

Note the incorrect form of triangle, square and other figures. When bent they "will come out right". That's the most tricky part of making die - to calculate the correct angles. In diferent sizes there will be very, very minor diference.

Next step - engraving. Nothing much to say - just simple cutting. Last name engraved is for friend of mine reenactor (do not look for this name on lists )

And now just cut to size, solder, attach head, clean soldering seam and you're done. Simple.

Hapur:
Would you please post a picture of the mold(s) you are using to do this?
Jim

Hapur, With all of the recent discussions here and elsewhere on TKR ring manufacture I finally get to see one that is die struck. Thank You !!! .

I for one, and I would imagine for most of the other participants, would like to see as many pictures as would care to share with us. Especially a closeup or two of one or more of the Runes with a little of the surrounding area, and the fixture/tool that was used to form it into a circle if it wasn�t done by hand. This is fascinating stuff!!! Best Regards, FP

Welcome to the forum Hapur.. Many thanks for sharing the photos with us..,G.

For forming a circle is used only mandrel and fingers. I've tried to use comercially made tools but in this case there is no need for them. If you have strong fingers it's easy, if not than you need to play with hammer. First thing you bend ring for soldering, it is not bent round but more like half moon. The reason is to allign both ends more accurate in all dimensions. And after soldering just mandrel and hammer. For me this is faster (I'm very lasy to get my ass out of chair and go to the table with this circle former, and even after that to get perfect roundness you need mandrel and hammer). So in my opinion it's uselees.
Sorry for my poor english, hope it's understandable.

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Put it this way: I would KILL to have such a device, and not have to cast each of my repro TKRings.

Have to agree for 101% with Josias. When I started to make repro TK rings I did it using casting method. But since orders kept coming in I decided not to fool arround with casting and do real deal. Josias know all the pain in ... with hand finishing casted things. For me it's wast of time and poorer quality. There is no diference what casting equipment has been used, anyway you will loose quality and there will not be absolute "Sameness" or repeatability in other words. Than add all the trouble with cutting to the correct size and engraving and attaching skull and blah, blah. After I made dies for TKring when I hear about casting them it sounds to me like dantist pulling tooth thru ass, sorry for vulgarity.

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:

If these were cast in the round what is the purpose of the seam? I've seen rings from size 7 to size 16(American measurment) so were there different size molds?* If you cut these round castings apart to resize them wouldn't the ring now be out of round? Why don't we see other types of cast ring examples with a seam if this was a common practice?
*Also if these were in fact cast round wouldn't you occasionally cast one which was the right size for the order where no resizing was necessary thus making cutting apart and a seam unnecessary? But we all know of no legitimate rings without the seam.
Just some more food for thought.
Jim

Also right for 100%. When I casted them I had made 5 or 6 rubers diferent sizes with skulls attached. I do believe Gahrs firm could afford same amount of rubbers too . After all the hassle with touching up and hand finishing you need to engrave. You sure can engrave in round ring too, but that add's more difficulties to do it nice and alligned. So why would somebody skilled enoughgo hard way for lesser quality? Was the Gahr dumb? Do not think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):

I don�t know if this helps in the discussion or not, but the image posted earlier looked like only 1/2 of a die set. And more specifically, the male or �punch� component of the set. [/url]

It's not really correct. It is master die from which the working die or female die was made. This specific ring was made without male die. There is no reason to waste labour and materials for male die in this case. And at that time noone wasted die materials. I have some dies inherited from 30ies and 40ies there is so many dies made in one single piece of metal.

If I talk too much just ask me to shut up, but it's sunday and I have some beers.

hapur:
Keep right on going as the thinking in some quarters are going to have to be radically reversed.
Also please tell everyone how to order one of your rings and the cost.
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
hapur:

Also please tell everyone how to order one of your rings and the cost.
Jim

Just email me minaeff at yahoo.com and let me know the size of ring and text you would like to be engraved.
I think $80.00 including engraving would be fair enough price.

Do you have a picture of a finished ring with skull?

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
With changes forced upon them by the need to speed up production and economize for the war effort - using stampings instead of the more traditional forging and machining processes. There is not a one to one equivalency as to what is available now as compared to 70+ years ago. And believe that things have to taken in the context of what was commonly available during the time that an item was made.

From this angle of view compare stamping and casting. When I use my baby (german made 1934 press, which is approx 7000 pounds of iron,it uses electricity for few seconds for every item, and thats it, no more energy just hand job). Now compare with casting huge amounts of wasted energy (flask burnouts, which takes many many hours of very high temp in oven, wax melting, injection, energy for hand finishing tools etc) and materials wasted as investment, wax and so on. Think about this.

quote:

Originally posted by 11C:
Do you have a picture of a finished ring with skull?

Not on this comp. Will finish this one and show you.

.

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspare:
6 years ago I wanted to finally go ahead and start working on a book about private purchase rings. I had been gathering info etc. I decided to go to NYC and interview a few old time jewelers. I showed each one a 3rd Reich period ring. I asked them how this ring was made back in the late 30's/early 40's.. All said about the same thing, Carved model,,wax pieces put together,,'Investment cast',,made in the round, etc.etc..

I'll try to explain this thing.
The wealthier country the wealthier are jewelers. so they can spend more money on diferent equipment. As soon they get equipment that allows to avoid some steps requiring skills and hand job they start to forget these skills. And if with modern casting equipment practically everybody can do casting in kitchen there is no need fo engravers that can cut dies. And since there are cnc equipment engraver are not needed at all. So nobody today teaches engravers for making dies. So today they are dynosaurs. Today technology is not made for making certain design, but oposite. Look on modern jewelry design, it has been made on computer, wax has been cut by cnc - design have been projected keeping in mind how machine can cut and what it can cut.

And that means that casting is more versatile, you make some and see if this product is needed, if yes fine, just keep casting, if not - no big deal wasted just piece of rubber and some time creating wax patern. Steel die is investment, and expensive one. So if you are not sure there will be need for it you do not make it. And try to imagine modern jewelry that is needed in thousands and thousands pieces guaranteed?
Actually versatility and available casting equipment are main reasons why die struck jewelry has been forgot.

Interesting and enlightening discussion.
Hapur,
It would be interesting to see a photo of your 1934 "Baby" also.
Cheers and thanks,
Pauli

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):

There were (and still are) machines such as rolling mills. But with a punch that looks like it has a fairly flat face, and flat back. And being reasonably certain that it was at one time paired with a corresponding die. With all due respect to everyone concerned. How would they have been mounted and used? In the context of the early 1930�s/40�s, with something other than a conventional punch (or coining) press?

This particular design from Gaspare picture can not be struck using rolling mill. Rolling mill can be used on flat and same width design. Pattern have to bee engraved on one roll other roll stays flat. then just slide piece of metal thru it. Sometimes you can make forming roll without engraving directly on roll, it can be done using master die and one roll "raw"(I mean not forged), but forging sure is needed after. Also there is possible use of rolling mill with regular dies. Simply let die and forming material thru rolling mill.So use of rolling mill and punch press use is the same process. Sure these dies rolled thru rolling mill will not survive for long time, but it is possible.

Hapur, A very interesting presentation. And one that is going to help bring a lot of new focus on the making of rings.

�There is no diference what casting equipment has been used, anyway you will loose quality and there will not be absolute "Sameness" or repeatability in other words.�

I�m in agreement. While modern commercial precision investment castings generally conform in most parameters. They are not going to be as exact a copy as a die cast one. Or a stamping such as a coin.

�It's not really correct. It is master die from which the working die or female die was made. This specific ring was made without male die. There is no reason to waste labour and materials for male die in this case. And at that time noone wasted die materials. I have some dies inherited from 30ies and 40ies there is so many dies made in one single piece of metal.�

Are you suggesting that Gaspare�s die is some kind of �hobbing� (Abw�lzverfahren) die? I have not seen this exact ring in a finished condition, so what I posted was my best estimation. But if the body of the ring is the same gauge metal as the band portion. How was the ring made with only one die without something to push against to form the metal? For example: How would a stamping press make an automobile hood with curves from just one die. Without some kind of mirror image die to force the metal into the desired shape?

"From this angle of view compare stamping and casting. When I use my baby (german made 1934 press, which is approx 7000 pounds of iron,it uses electricity for few seconds for every item, and thats it, no more energy just hand job). Now compare with casting huge amounts of wasted energy (flask burnouts, which takes many many hours of very high temp in oven, wax melting, injection, energy for hand finishing tools etc) and materials wasted as investment, wax and so on. Think about this."

Your �baby� (I like that) sounds like one of the machines that were made to last a very long time - which is a good thing. Not like some of the ones today. I'm assuming that it is a conventional punch press - instead of a coining press (Pr�gemaschine)?

"I'll try to explain this thing. ....... �with modern casting equipment practically everybody can do casting in kitchen� ...... Actually versatility and available casting equipment are main reasons why die struck jewelry has been forgot."

That�s certainly one of problems we have now. There are still a fair number of professional manufacturing jewelers who custom make rings which are cast. But we also have some schools that have classes for adults in casting and making jewelry as a hobby. With some of the students deciding to go into business for themselves with dishonest intentions.

Thank You for joining in on the discussion and sharing your knowledge and experience.

With my Best Regards, FP

Below: �Sameness�. (And yes, I cheated a little using the same nickel plated steel dagger chain link.) But I think the image is still a good example of what items that were die struck look like - which is all the same. With perhaps some occasional very minor imperfections, all alike from one dagger to the next by the same maker. And considering the fact that they were stamped from sheet steel not a softer metal. I think that the skulls and teeth look really good.

I should add one thing here that I spent about 10 years living next door to the owner of one of the largest tool and die making shops in the Mid West. Eric and I had numerous conversations about moldmaking and casting and I spent many hours in his shop observing what was going on. His shop,for example, made all the molds out of aluminum for the NFL football helmets and also all the molds for GMs dashboards. This was long before I had any interest in Tk rings and the like. The one thing I came away with from these discussions from long ago was that die casting was the way to go for uniformity and precision. In his opinion rubber mold casting and the like was only useful for amateur efforts and one off jewelry works.
Jim

That sounds about right to me with a Caveat or two. For series production of commercial/industrial items permanent molds are preferred because the results are much more consistent. Aluminum is not a problem. But where one of the Caveats comes into play is with some high temperature and/or high tech metals that don�t do well with permanent molds.

Where the other one comes into play is with �one off jewelry works�. With them, the process to try and create rings good enough to fool the collecting public is an evolutionary one. With constant improvements until they get to the �superfake� stage. Which is where we seem to be now, judging from some of the comments that I have seen of late. And the rubber molds/wax rings give them the flexibility they need to make those improvements. FP

.[/i]

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):


Are you suggesting that Gaspare�s die is some kind of �hobbing� (Abw�lzverfahren) die? I have not seen this exact ring in a finished condition, so what I posted was my best estimation. But if the body of the ring is the same gauge metal as the band portion. How was the ring made with only one die without something to push against to form the metal? For example: How would a stamping press make an automobile hood with curves from just one die. Without some kind of mirror image die to force the metal into the desired shape?

In old times that was done with soft puanson, wide variety of them. Even cardboard was used as male die. In old times that was done for few reasons. First to cut moldmaking expenses, second to make sure that even lovwer qualiefied personal can not brake dies, and speed is the same, results are the same, why to go hard and expensive way. Below is pic how ring from Gaspare die will look



Your �baby� (I like that) sounds like one of the machines that were made to last a very long time - which is a good thing. Not like some of the ones today. I'm assuming that it is a conventional punch press - instead of a coining press (Pr�gemaschine)?

My "baby" is friction screw press approx 4 meters tall.


But we also have some schools that have classes for adults in casting and making jewelry as a hobby. With some of the students deciding to go into business for themselves with dishonest intentions.

Yes agree but I think problem is with dishonest sellers not with craftsmen. For example with my products, I do not think you can blame me for making reproductions and selling them as such. But problem is with resellers buying them and after ageing selling them as originals.

�In old times that was done with soft puanson, wide variety of them. Even cardboard was used as male die. In old times that was done for few reasons. First to cut moldmaking expenses, second to make sure that even lovwer qualiefied personal can not brake dies, and speed is the same, results are the same, why to go hard and expensive way. Below is pic how ring from Gaspare die will look�

�puanson�? I�m don�t know that term. Some kind of backing with a metal plate behind it? I vaguely remember seeing something about alternate materials like plastic (Bakelite?) being used during wartime. For the press forming of aircraft sheet metal(?). But to get fine external details like lettering to replicate accurately (like that seen on Gaspare�s ring) I�m not familiar with absent a female die. In the U.S. from that era for coins with a lot of surface detail they used a �Knuckle-Joint� coining press. Which had other applications like the screw press, but was not as flexible as the screw press with either hot or cold metal forming applications.

"Yes agree but I think problem is with dishonest sellers not with craftsmen. For example with my products, I do not think you can blame me for making reproductions and selling them as such. But problem is with resellers buying them and after ageing selling them as originals."

I can�t argue with that. It�s not craftsman who are asked to make something who at fault. And it�s not just resellers who are the problem. While it grieves me to say it. Sometimes it�s profit motivated dealers and collectors who are placing the orders, and providing the expertise that the craftsman lack. Because the average craftsman simply is not going to have the specialized knowledge that is needed and it has to come from somewhere. For that matter, the same is true for many of the altered items that we see in circulation made to deceive. With the craftsman simply asked to perform the work.

PS: Nice ring! Thanks for posting it. Best Regards, FP

Hapur - Boy, am I JEALOUS!! GREAT presentation which will open many eyes!! I got an e-mail from Don Boyle today, and he said that the only person with access to Gahr paperwork had confirmed to him that they were NOT cast!! You can't really blame Craig for clinging to the belief that were cast, as MANY people believed this, including myself.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
�puanson�? I�m don�t know that term.

My apologies, I tought it was english word. Puanson is male die. In other words there were no male die. With dumb power (my baby punches with 65 ton force) you can "squeeze" cardbord or any other material to the state were it becomes harder than metal needed to form.

Perfect example of this technology is that Westwall ring I posted earlier. Look on details inside, they will tell you a lot. As said my teacher - Learn to understand what you see.

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
Hapur:
Would you please post a picture of the mold(s) you are using to do this?
Jim

Ok will do it tomorrow or day after.

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):

Where the other one comes into play is with �one off jewelry works�. With them, the process to try and create rings good enough to fool the collecting public is an evolutionary one. With constant improvements until they get to the �superfake� stage. Which is where we seem to be now, judging from some of the comments that I have seen of late. And the rubber molds/wax rings give them the flexibility they need to make those improvements. FP

I wouldn't agree on that. To trained eye there always will be clear if item has been casted or die struck. And that is the answer to most of qestions about German ring authenticy. There are not many "dynosaurs" left, actually I know only one besides me.

quote:

Originally posted by jim m:
I should add one thing here that I spent about 10 years living next door to the owner of one of the largest tool and die making shops in the Mid West. Eric and I had numerous conversations about moldmaking and casting and I spent many hours in his shop observing what was going on. His shop,for example, made all the molds out of aluminum for the NFL football helmets and also all the molds for GMs dashboards. This was long before I had any interest in Tk rings and the like. The one thing I came away with from these discussions from long ago was that die casting was the way to go for uniformity and precision. In his opinion rubber mold casting and the like was only useful for amateur efforts and one off jewelry works.
Jim

If I do understand you right you are talking about die casting or in other words preasure injection casting. Technically it is possible, but think about very complicated equipment, much more complicated dies compared to die struck, and energy waste , and many other troubles. This method is good for aluminum, zinc etc. in hundreds of thousands pieces. Those are reasons why you never hear about silver die casting even today.

quote:

If I do understand you right you are talking about die casting or in other words preasure injection casting. Technically it is possible, but think about very complicated equipment, much more complicated dies compared to die struck, and energy waste , and many other troubles. This method is good for aluminum, zinc etc. in hundreds of thousands pieces. Those are reasons why you never hear about silver die casting even today.

hapur:
You are understanding me correctly. The dies made by this company were used to make hundreds of thousands of examples.
Would you also post an example of one of your Honor ring copies as well.
Jim

Hapur,� Thanks for the additional input.� OK.� If I got it correctly. Gaspare�s steel punch is in fact then a male �hobbing� punch.� From the look of it, not the polished and hardened kind that we might see now to make a female die from steel. � But something to make a highly compressed cardboard female die.� With a (more or less) flat face steel punch at the end of the ram pushing the brass blank into the die cavity to form the ring. Correct? Not something that I have seen myself, but I am always willing to learn.� PS: �Puanson� = �punch� the male part, with the female part being the "die". (with in typical U.S. fashion, the terms sometimes used generically and/or interchangeably.)

Josias, As for Don Boyles�s email, I would really like to see, or otherwise have the original Gahr German text word for word.� I am not trying to be argumentative, so please permit me to explain:

I have some period German sword blades that are marked �Gu�stahl�.� I had them in my collection for years thinking that they were made from cast steel - right?� Wrong!! What the Gu�stahl marking meant was �crucible� steel which is an entirely different matter. And that is just one example.

And I am wondering what the documentation actually says - because of the multiple different methods that could have been used. Best Regards to All,� FP

hapur,, please email me [yours isn't working], [email protected]
I'd like to show you some photos..


There were a few different methods of making mass produced rings during the 3rd reich period..Hapurs information is of great value here for the members,,I thank you again..

My die is the master die. The working dies were made from this. Afterwards it went into storage until the working dies either got too worn to produce a good copy or they broke..

Here is the ring itself:

inside:

Gaspare, Thank you for posting the images, they really do help visualizing the process. If I understood Hapur correctly, here is a simulation of the (inside) "punch" portion of the set. With it pushing the sheet metal into the cavity of the die. While ordinarily I would think that the punch would be made of steel because of a lack of lateral support. Perhaps he will correct me (?). FP

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
Gaspare, Thank you for posting the images, they really do help visualizing the process. If I understood Hapur correctly, here is a simulation of the (inside) "punch" portion of the set. With it pushing the sheet metal into the cavity of the die. While ordinarily I would think that the punch would be made of steel because of a lack of lateral support. Perhaps he will correct me (?). FP

A little hard to explain with my poor english
What I'm trying to say is that there were no punch at all. Best example is cardboard. You have only female die, matrix. Place on it sheet metal, cardboard on top and turn on press. There could be many materials used leather, rubber, aluminum (not in the war time) but before etc. It may sound not seriously but with this thin sheetmetal and since there is no need for making clear picture inside the ring this is the right way. Probably better would be if I took photosession when doing something like this. When I started to do this many things sounded illogical and "kitchen grade", I didn't believe my grandfather and other old timers who have worked for themselves and for serious jewelry manufacture in 1930ies-50ies with hundreds of employees. Now I have a lot of heavy industrial equipment (I doubt that most of german jewelry firms had it at war time) and I'm more than sure that there is no easier and faster way to do this. And again you have to keep in mind that this was not really jewelry what you are collecting now, it was period massproduction (modern china if I can say so).

Hapur, Your English is just fine and a lot, lot, better than whatever remaining ability I have with my German.

I certainly welcome a photo session showing the process because it never hurts to see something in operation.

From what you said it seems to use the same underlying concept as that used with �Monroe Effect� metal shaping. With instead of the shock wave of an explosive charge being the force to shape the metal. Using cardboard (or leather, rubber etc.) to transmit the force from a press that is pushing the metal into the die.

Not something that I have encountered myself. But I�ve also never been a mass market/mass production jewelry maker either. And can see that with relatively low cost items you would not want to have a lot of investment tied up in tooling if you can avoid it.

It sounds to me like your grandfather and the �old timers� were some very smart individuals making the best use of what was available to them. Best Regards, FP

HAPUR - Show us a pic of your skull!! Ple-e-e-eease!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
HAPUR - Show us a pic of your skull!! Ple-e-e-eease!!!

Josias, I'm in proces of moving to countryside, so most of the things are in boxes. I do not have one complete on hand and home comp is already in box. Hope I'll be able to show it next week. Will make some pics of my "baby" press today.

I have absolutly no experiance or knowlage on jewlery design or making, but my question is about the engraving method. Wouldnt it have been easier to engrave the mettal after it was pressed, while still flat, as opposed to doing it after it was rounded, as I assume would have to be the case if it was cast. Anyone have an opinion or knowlage on this?

quote:

Originally posted by vikodlak:
I have absolutly no experiance or knowlage on jewlery design or making, but my question is about the engraving method. Wouldnt it have been easier to engrave the mettal after it was pressed, while still flat, as opposed to doing it after it was rounded, as I assume would have to be the case if it was cast. Anyone have an opinion or knowlage on this?

No doubt engraving on a flat/open surface is much easier than on a formed ring.
I personally verified it when an old and very experienced engraver of my town did the job in my SSHR to wear.

Ric

As promised my "baby"

Manufacturer plate.

Step 1, place a die in press

Step 2, place silver bar on die.

step 3, punch it.

Done.

Now it's time to "remove casting flaws and do handfinish "

Aw common hapur, that ain't no RUBBER MOLD!!!

Thanks very much for your appreciated, very enlightening and well received contributions.

Best regards,

John

If there is somebody interested I can take pics of whole process from here to finished ring.

Go for it hapur:
It's about time this process was documented completely. BTW if you'll email me at the address in my profile I'd like to discuss obtaining one of your copies.
Jim

YES - Show us the whole process!! Thanks!!

OK, will make pics of soldering and bending tomorrow. Skull making and attaching will be able to show only next week because those dies are already at new workshop.

great info hapur,,,please do show us all the steps to finished product,,,

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:
As promised my "baby"

Hapur,
Simply Beautiful!
Rare as well. Thanks for giving us a peek.
It is just as I had imagined.
Cheers, Pauli

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):


I certainly welcome a photo session showing the process because it never hurts to see something in operation.

From what you said it seems to use the same underlying concept as that used with �Monroe Effect� metal shaping. With instead of the shock wave of an explosive charge being the force to shape the metal. Using cardboard (or leather, rubber etc.) to transmit the force from a press that is pushing the metal into the die.

Not something that I have encountered myself. But I�ve also never been a mass market/mass production jewelry maker either. And can see that with relatively low cost items you would not want to have a lot of investment tied up in tooling if you can avoid it.

It sounds to me like your grandfather and the �old timers� were some very smart individuals making the best use of what was available to them. Best Regards, FP

ok, here is soft punch. Sheet metal, on top aluminum (yes I know it's not war time, but had not piece of cardbord on hand. Proces is the same in general, with slight diferences)

punch it

soft material removed

Another "casted" ring

hapur, from Germany?

and many other things from the Reich where done in the same fashion, and it's a common fashion and not exotic at all.

quote:

Originally posted by b.collector:

quote:

Originally posted by vikodlak:
I have absolutly no experiance or knowlage on jewlery design or making, but my question is about the engraving method. Wouldnt it have been easier to engrave the mettal after it was pressed, while still flat, as opposed to doing it after it was rounded, as I assume would have to be the case if it was cast. Anyone have an opinion or knowlage on this?

No doubt engraving on a flat/open surface is much easier than on a formed ring.
I personally verified it when an old and very experienced engraver of my town did the job in my SSHR to wear.

Ric

Who made your ring Ric?

What a wonderful machine your 'baby' is!! Was she a hand operated with crank in the beginning and then converted to electric motor??

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspare:
What a wonderful machine your 'baby' is!! Was she a hand operated with crank in the beginning and then converted to electric motor??

Are you kidding? Motor that is running now is 15 H/P (my feeling is that could be bigger). Do you imagine how many hands are needed to run her.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert H.:
hapur, from Germany?

and many other things from the Reich where done in the same fashion, and it's a common fashion and not exotic at all.

Yes during war time absolutely most of the things were done this way. Most medals, badges, buckles, daggers and bayonets etc.

Hapur, Thank You for a very interesting and informative photo session. I am looking forward to the continuation. From the placement of the upper drive wheel - I'm wondering if perhaps originally the screw press came from a factory with an overhead drive belt system? With an external power source driving all of the machinery as was the custom of earlier times for many factories?

Thanks Again for the work you put into making this not only an interesting. But very educational thread. Best Regards, FP

Hi, originally motor was located on press. But moving company that moved press to my garage dropped it and broke "hooks" for motor. And since frame is cast iron I couldn't weld them back, so I went easiest way and placed motor on table you see now.

hapur its very intersting info and photo !!!
many thx.
wanna ask you : you show us original press-form
from Otto Gahr ?

I have understood, it have made hapur :-)

Could you tell us how the die itself was made?

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:
Hi, originally motor was located on press. But moving company that moved press to my garage dropped it and broke "hooks" for motor. And since frame is cast iron I couldn't weld them back, so I went easiest way and placed motor on table you see now.

Hapur, the RIGHT Welder can repair these breaks.

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Could you tell us how the die itself was made?

Something tells me there is "high heat" and a single strike involved in the die manufacture.

Do not make rocket science out of die making
Get some tool steel bar, sharpen some cutters get microscope and start to "gnaw" it. When master ready, make female die, fix mistakes and do heat treatment. You're done.

quote:

Hapur, the RIGHT Welder can repair these breaks.

I thought that Hapur�s solution to the problem was a practical, straightforward way to get back into operation with minimal cost and effort. But that�s just from my perspective.

I had an old drill press table (cast iron) that somebody cracked. In the greater L.A. area (which is not small) I found the �go to� guy for that kind of repair and asked him to weld it (he did a lot of work for some of the aerospace and aerospace related companies). He said no, and recommended brazing which he did. He would not even touch machinery from Asia because of the inconsistency of the castings. FP

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):

quote:

Hapur, the RIGHT Welder can repair these breaks.

I thought that Hapur�s solution to the problem was a practical, straightforward way to get back into operation with minimal cost and effort. But that�s just from my perspective.

I had an old drill press table (cast iron) that somebody cracked. In the greater L.A. area (which is not small) I found the �go to� guy for that kind of repair and asked him to weld it (he did a lot of work for some of the aerospace and aerospace related companies). He said no, and recommended brazing which he did. He would not even touch machinery from Asia because of the inconsistency of the castings. FP

Quality welding was not possible because of hooks thickness, not only cast iron. Sure I could make some hooks separate and screw them in, but why? This way now I can get easy acces to motor do some lube, chek bearrings, much easier to remove belts if I need to do some service and get to screw etc. If press will get retired and displayed in museum, then somebody can play arround. But I think with proper care press will last in working condition much longer than any of us. The vertical shaper I use for die punch making is from 1924 and in perfect condition and also I think with proper care it will work some other 100 years. I like those old cast iron monsters they are foolproof

quote:

Originally posted by 11C:

quote:

Originally posted by b.collector:

quote:

Originally posted by vikodlak:
I have absolutly no experiance or knowlage on jewlery design or making, but my question is about the engraving method. Wouldnt it have been easier to engrave the mettal after it was pressed, while still flat, as opposed to doing it after it was rounded, as I assume would have to be the case if it was cast. Anyone have an opinion or knowlage on this?

No doubt engraving on a flat/open surface is much easier than on a formed ring.
I personally verified it when an old and very experienced engraver of my town did the job in my SSHR to wear.

Ric

Who made your ring Ric?

Chris and his father made it : great craftmanship.

Best

Ric

Hapur,

thanks a lot for your educational photos with description.
By them you definitively brought light on a subject not only SSHr related, as you rightly pointed out.

Please show us the whole process : from die making to the object finishing.

TIA

Ric

quote:

Originally posted by b.collector:
Hapur,

Please show us the whole process : from die making to the object finishing.

TIA

Ric

Ok, for some beer I'll show glass fired enamelling also.

Ok here we continue. Soldering.

This ugly they look after soldering.

Soldering on head.

...quiet, Master craftsman @ work...

After acid bath

Cleaned off white sh...

Blackened

Finished

diferent light

I believe I know where this one is going to end up.
Jim

GREAT thread Hap! Thank you for your impressive and informative presentation!
As you stated, not rocket science.
You are, no doubt, a skilled metal-smith, none the less.
High "E"gards,
Pauli

This has to be one of the most interesting and informative thread ever.

Thanks you Sir for your time and contribution !

not bad ring, but skull ...

This is my 1953 class ring mold. Note the curvature of the face in the mold, this will flatten when sized. This style is welded and sized in the back
Good things never change.. much

quote:

Originally posted by Mann:

Good things never change.. much

Agree, good things never changes. Good die. Did you made this?

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:

quote:

Originally posted by Mann:

Good things never change.. much

Agree, good things never changes. Good die. Did you made this?

No, I bought this a year ago @ a flea market. Back when I first became interested in HRs.

The brand new SS Ring book that Craig wrote emphatically states that the rings were cast. Looks like his opening statement regarding production methods and theories on pages 24 and 25 are premature.

I was able to get the book at a substantial discount at a recent militaria show and have been reading it every day.

Mark

i think these are rather attractive,,,

*Mark I've heard the book is available thru eBay now.. anyway,,Craig is wrong about the construction method period....

*Hapur, This is a real treat for all of us here.. Thank you very much for sharing all this with us! , G.

I've already contacted some tool and die makers, and if possible, I WILL be switching over to this method as soon as humanly possible. I will still be having TKR's cast to accomodate those who are interested, but the amount of detailing necessary to clean up the waxes for casting makes it VERY impractical, and the quality fluctuates too much. I can have a PERFECT master cast, but the subsequent copies often have too many imperfections. This means I would have to learn to hand engrave the inside inscriptions. I'm so serious about this, I may even sell my Quist SS helmet to finance the operation.

Hi Josias,
based on what you have wrote about your castings, it does not sound serious. As I do understand at this moment you hire somebody to do castings, then you send them to somebody for soldering etc? (if you still receive castings in same quality as you posted pics, I would changed caster or casted myself) My advise would be finish one project before jump to another. I'll try to explain why. Before actual stamping there is job to be done before. You have to melt correct silver content. Then you have to cast silver bars right size, then you have to roll them to get right shape and only AFTER all this you can start thinking about actual stamping etc. And this is actual ring casting process, instead of casting bars you cast in investment molds rings. Before this you just have to make waxes and fill flasks with investment. Otherwise process is the same. In my opinion you could get all the casting equipment and do actual casting yourself and cast them flat. And starting from casted flat rings you can start learn engraving and making actual rings and all the solderings etc. And if you can handle all this you can start thinking about stamping. Stamping in small quantities is very expensive if you do not have all the equipment and can not do all yourself. If you do not have all the equipment you will have to hire dozen diferent companies to get this completed and that's gonna cost you a fortune. Just IMHO. I went thru all this.

If that can be interesting for forum members I can show casting process of this same ring. I can "fake" it

Hapur is awarded the "Great Thread" badge for his contributions to this thread and for expanding our knowledge of manufacturing techniques.

Congratulations,
Dave

Well earned Dave!

Mark

Congrats on a well deserved award Hapur!!!
I agree, this thread is an eye opener for some.
Thank you for your tips on die production!

By the way, concerning your baby's eye hook fractures, I have had great success welding cast iron using a mig welder with C/O shielding gas.
The trick is to gouge enough of the broken edges off to get the proper temperature and heat sink, and the right wire speed.
All the BEST,
Pauli

well deserved; an absorbing thread

Congradulations:
Best I've seen here in a long time. Got me back to posting some.
Jim

quote:

Hi Josias,
based on what you have wrote about your castings, it does not sound serious. As I do understand at this moment you hire somebody to do castings, then you send them to somebody for soldering etc? (if you still receive castings in same quality as you posted pics, I would changed caster or casted myself) My advise would be finish one project before jump to another. I'll try to explain why. Before actual stamping there is job to be done before. You have to melt correct silver content. Then you have to cast silver bars right size, then you have to roll them to get right shape and only AFTER all this you can start thinking about actual stamping etc. And this is actual ring casting process, instead of casting bars you cast in investment molds rings. Before this you just have to make waxes and fill flasks with investment. Otherwise process is the same. In my opinion you could get all the casting equipment and do actual casting yourself and cast them flat. And starting from casted flat rings you can start learn engraving and making actual rings and all the solderings etc. And if you can handle all this you can start thinking about stamping. Stamping in small quantities is very expensive if you do not have all the equipment and can not do all yourself. If you do not have all the equipment you will have to hire dozen diferent companies to get this completed and that's gonna cost you a fortune. Just IMHO. I went thru all this.

If that can be interesting for forum members I can show casting process of this same ring. I can "fake" it

Hapur, Please accept my congratulations also for a very well deserved award!!!!

And some very well made points, especially: � Stamping in small quantities is very expensive if you do not have all the equipment and can not do all yourself.� The necessary equipment for small scale investment casting is much less, with some of the tradeoffs being more work effort making good quality wax rings to be cast, more finishing etc.

�If that can be interesting for forum members I can show casting process of this same ring. I can "fake" it ?� . I�ve seen all the stages for other kinds of investment cast items - but never a TKR ring. And think it would be very interesting to see the comparison. With my Best Regards, FP

hapur,
Congratulations and thank you on a very interesting subject for all us ring collectors.

One of the most interesting and detailed threads I've seen in a very long time - great work!

Regards

Russ

CONGRATULIATIONS hapur

Wery interesting tread u got.

Hapur,
Thank you for taking the time to show this process,very interesting.

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

Nice info and GREAT Pics...SO will Craig Admit to MAYBE being wrong?

Thanks for good words!

Again weekend, again some beers...
Litle more about stamping here. After ring parts has been die struck they need to be cut off excess. It's beeing done with stamping block (don't know if this is correct name in english). They need to be made for every part new. That's not cheep at all. If you do not have such blocks and the press for this (diferent type than used for die struck) you need to saw every part and finish by hand, that's more labor than finishing casted rings. Below on pic is one such block , not for TK ring, (at home garage this is the last left, ring blocks are already at new home) Hope you get idea how its work. This is bit more complicated three stage block (at one stroke it makes three operations) was used for reenactors silver dog tags.

Hapur,
Did you also make the die's for your rings?

Hope you don't mind me asking,are you from Germany? If so, did any of your family members ever produce any items for the Reich?

Thanks

Sepp
GDC 0292 Gold

Yes Sepp I make die's myself.
No I'm not from Germany. My greatgrandfather have made some private purchase rings and other stuff, as souvenirs for German soldiers, or more correct would be said that he continued manufacturing souvenirs during wartime, never official stuff for Reich.

Hapur, My compliments for the nice machine tool work on the die you posted. I think that they are generally known as �trim� dies to shear (cut) off the excess material known as �flash�. I also know from another discussion a long while back on something else. That in different parts of U.S. sometimes (but not always) different expressions are used. But think that �trim� die is closest to an industry standard.

Have a good weekend!!! Best Regards, FP

This is incredible interesting hapur

Keep up the GOOD work

What a great thread!! I learned something today.

Thanks Jim M for telling me about it!!!

It's been a real hoot for me watching my own TK ring being made. It you scroll up to the April 15 at 12:10 post mine is the top ring in the double stack as evidenced by the 42 which is visible. I had my name and birthdate engraved in the ring so there will be NO confusion as to it's being a copy in the future as it's a fooler to the uninitiated. The maker is from Latvia and takes Paypal. It took 8 days for the ring to arrive which I feel is excellent service.
Thanks again hapur for the educational thread and a job well done.

Note to Admin:
In my opinion this thread shoud be pinned so it isn't lost like so many others have been here. As far as I know; This is the ONLY place where the correct method of making these rings is documented.
Jim

Jim,
we gotta remember,,hapurs way is the method that most of the private purchase rings are made. Don agrees this is very close to the original method the HR was made but not exactly 100%..It does show/explain more than most sites so here it is.

your right though Jim,,it's a good thread,,and its my pleasure to feature it at the top..

*

Gaspare:
Hopefully Don will now be encouraged to write a new book. The nice thing about having a resource like hapur is he could demonstrate the complete process with a little coaching from Don.
I think I need to point somethings out. On examination of my ring naturally none of the die flaws are present as would be expected since the Gahr dies aren't being used. Additionally even someone with hapurs skills can't get the engraving exactly right.
I don't think the owners of period rings have much to fear if they have done their homework before purchase.
Jim

While I don�t disagree with the general intent of the above. I would be reluctant to adopt a philosophy that assumes that even better and better rings could not be manufactured. With the question being more of: How much in the way of time and resources does the maker want to invest to make a good copy?

I have a small collection of coins that I started when I was very, very, young which has gotten only a little bigger as I grew older. So I am not really a �coin collector� as a hobby. Pictured below is an example of some pre-computer/modern technology engraving work (that used stamping dies) done in the 1920�s - with comparable quality going back for a considerable period of time.

I recently read of considerable concern in the coin collecting community of some very high grade fakes that are causing a lot of turmoil. As I recall the source was Asia. But it really could be anywhere, and apparently is something that is not new to them that has been an ongoing problem. My point being that I don�t think we can say something will never happen. And that we will have to remain always on the alert. FP

FP, you are certainly right:

http://reviews.ebay.com/Spotti...idZ10000000005234659

http://coinauctionshelp.com/Co...e_Morgan_Dollar.html



*

I've been asked by several my opinion of the TK ring copy I had made by Hapur. Overall; I think the quality is excellent but It wouldn't fool anyone familiar with these rings since none of the die flaws are present. One of the nice things about this copy is it's full size unlike the prevelant cast examples. I did a little "tune up" to the skull to improve the appearance but I'll let this picture speak for itself:
Jim

As long as you are pleased,thats all that counts.
Seiler (yank in UK)

Incidentially the ring as it appears in the above picture is about 10 times the actual size. I did this on purpose so the details would show up better. It actually looks much better at its actual size.
Jim

I like it. A solid ring.
..And for less than the price of a sports car!

Thank you for posting the pictures Jim. It is a good looking ring. Makes an impressive statement when worn.

A realy nice ring Jim.

Mine is on the way to me from Hapur. The one I was wearing every day was the "R.Dolp" repro that Craig Gottlieb wrote about and pictured in his Honor Ring book. Obviously, I took it off and have been wearing a Mark Morton reproduction since and I am looking forward to one with my own name and birthday inscribed ...that is going to be my new 'daily driver'. Amazingly affordable and from a nice guy who has shown us a lot.

Mark

Best informative thread in a long time.

Thanks Hapur for sharing your skills with us.

Great old machinery.
Everything makes sense here...especially when you can see it step by step.

-serge-

I have been contacted by so many people asking for hapurs email address I decided to post it here:

[email protected]

I have no involvement financially or otherwise with this gentleman other than with the specific ring he made for me that you can see in the above pictures.
Jim

Some engraving examples.

Same rings, already on the way to new homes.

Geez hapur:
There's lots of familiar names there. If I'd known you were going to be this successful I'd have asked for a "promotional" copy for me!!
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by hapur:
Same rings, already on the way to new homes.

Hello Hapur,

glad to see "mine" is among them

Best

Ric

we are still waithing for the rings
this is not a proper way to build up some trust.

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but please stay tuned for a research article that I hope will put the matter of original Totenkopf Ring manufacturing techniques to rest once and for all. I will publish it on my website in the "articles" section of my new Totenkopf Ring section.

I read your book and according to it, they were cast...is that not the case?

hapur has got it down to a science and does a great job on a nice reasonable repro....look at the names of our members he has made them for. Not a bad clientele.

Mark

http://www.craiggottlieb.com/d...lter=Totenkopf+Rings
Interesting update from Craig that kinda blows one of Dons theories away?!

Jon, pure speculation is all that is. No factual back up, just a general unsupported statement.

Mark

Craig,, His name is Don Boyle,,you like being called Gottlieb?!
Don was good enough when you needed him many years ago to help start this site! How many times have you've gone to him with HRs that you've thought real but were fake,,that he helped you from NOT buying..Now you just have to try and prove him wrong..

There is maybe a handful,,7? ,5? that knows what Don knows and has/owns.. You keep going Craig,,good thing Don doesn't play this bull**** game and is content with himself.

You made an elementary mistake in your book. If your trying to prove they were made from a rubber mold, or from a poured/gravity fed permanent mold your dead wrong and only the mis informed / naive will believe you anyway..

Well said,Gaspare.
I hate this BS point scoring.
Proves nothing.
Seiler

Hapur, I've sent you a PM and email.

Regards

Russ

gottlieb... you think Mr Don Boyle just made this up to fill space in his book??

"It was according to Boyle that Piechl had worked for Gahr. This connection was, according to Boyle, his source for much of the "inside-track" knowledge that he had on Totenkopf Rings and on Otto Gahr."

I can tell you who is "not" on Gaspare's short list of 7?5?
I would bet that 80% of what you know about these rings you learned from Don's book, the other 20% Don showed you!!!

ENOUGH

Sepp

This thread is very interesting and informative, but there seems to be a growing lack of politeness here.

Disagree with each other by all means but read the Code of Conduct again and try to state you points without insults.

Thanks
Dave

Calling someone by there last name is not an insult. Remember the term according to Hoyle. Now Boyle is Hoyle (The Physicicist (sp) in this regard. It is actually respectfull. As when we say Hohaus we think Black daggers . Otherwise it would be it would be like Cheech and Chong. Who is Dave... Dave is not here man. Oh that Dave.

I have a 21.12.44 , with DB COA . I wear it sometimes . OOpps.
- Joe
Torinojo2:
According to this post of about 2 years ago you have the above ring. Would you please post pictures so the membership here could see it.
jim

Jim - I really do **** with computers but here goes . http://picasaweb.google.com/Xd...#5374818943603311442

Hi, made another skull die. Would like to hear opinions about this skull.

Hello Richard,

I personally like it a lot, it looks closer the original one IMO.

Is it ready for mass production ?

Ric

Yap, you see the picture, that means it is already built.

i hold it ring, but saw one moment: too large compared to the original sshr
and skull fantasy

Well, definitively another story !!!!

Hapur's quality is well known by Forum members, but with 2nd pattern SSHr has improved even IMO.

Very well worked seam, smaller and redesigned skull (I like it a lot) and as usually super detailed band.....by now my preferred wearer !

......and very fast shipping, welcome back Richards !

Ric

Hi boys,
if the rings were DIE STRUCK, why is there so many differences? I have 23 rings (all with Don Boyle�s certificate), but I have no one second.

Interesting question.
Like to hear more.
Ohtherwise in casting from a die also the result should be like a egg to an other.

On the last pic. The upper ring looks much more worn.

IM rookie and honest opinion- Die flaws exist just as casting flaws exist- I'm sure they didn't use just one die, and of course- there are predictable patterns as well as flaws, that certainly change also as a die gets used/worn out. It's better to see as many as we can to then be able to categorize the eras and ages and die flaws or flaw patterns as well as the ones caused by use to the end of a dies life. Never mind he variances caused by years of wear, or none at all! So As u mentioned- there's really no two the same, and think- you're looking at only 2 dozen or less- there were more than 10,000 made- so imagine the multitude of individual variations! One thing we look for though and know is true and consistent about its construction is that it was a die struck piece, cut to size and joined at the seam behind the skull which was made/manufactured and then separately attached. So it's not a matter of the differences, really- it's quite logical that there would be many, many of these- but the construction method would largely remain the same- it's illogical to asssume that the jewelers "re-invented the wheel" for any singular piece, yet we have clearly die struck examples from the very earliest, to the mid-transition era, to the very end of the war. I do not think it's likely the gahr firm changed horses midstream since we would clearly be able to demarcate the transition year or date to any new major ring construction overhaul. It also obviously gives very obvious fakes a leg to stand on because of course, we haven't recovered (as far as I know) any of the period dies. If one wanted to produce a fake- making a cast of an original ring is very obvious and easy solution in that case.

It is not a question of wear - here you can see not worn rings, like new, but details ale different. Because of casting. The mold was used. That�s the reason. I absolutely agree with Craig Gottlieb, the rings were wax casted.

I don�t understand one thing - the die was from steel? Is possible to make more steel dies with the same details? Cast steel die? How is die made?

And - how many rings can be made from one die?

Take a look at first ring - you can see traces of the knife which corrected not quality wax cast. Or have you some other explanation?

Cast or struck.
This is the question that seperates the professional circles

Allways interesting to hear the different opinions for me.

Take a look at these rings - the upper is from 1936, lower from 1937. Upper is more worn, but has more details than lower - less worn. You can see th elower is casted from worn mold. Die Struck will make the same depth, not fused edges. Have you seen some medals wit so many deferences? For example Sudeten medal, which was die struck in thousands pieces in few weeks?

And - if the ring was die struck, why the skull was cast? The same skull, which you can use for all rings?

Good questions for sure about the dies, Martin- when we see a period die well that should provide some answers! Not sure what they were made of, or how many rings could be made from each die before it was too used or broken. Certainly that explains variations even in struck rings- dies wear out. I believe that jewelers sized, seamed, engraved, and attached skulls- it would seem logical to me that they would use their tools then to correct some flaws or other touch up items, certainly they would be individually jeweler finished, probably by more than one master jeweler in the firm, but that's just speculation on my part there. I do not happen to believe there was any major overhaul of construction method (e.g. Die to cast), so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree with the assertion/assessment of Craig Gottlieb, who advocated for a lost wax construction method. Everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, and i appreciate very much hearing yours! They are as enigmatic as they are fascinating, these rings. Can't help but be absorbed by their history!

Tool marks on this ring are an evidence for me. The tool which squeezed the wax on matrix. If you know some other tool, which can sqeeze the steel or silver with these specific dimples, let me know...

Sorry man, I'm not buying Craig's explanation for a million bucks. It seemed to be, to me, an attempt to either legitimize existing fake rings, then sell them as real, or begin the manufacture of cast fakes from originals (which I assume has happened before) and then sell them as real. I don't know about the tool u mention in casting or in making rings- as I said, just a rookie who doesn't make cast rings or jewelers in his spare time- just a historian- that kind of truth I search for through the stories artifacts tell us...but i remember using a leather press that was a semi-circular scalloped tool then smacked it with a hammer to make that pattern on my belt in Boy Scouts. Stamped/struck. Again, you're totally entitled to your opinion and i appreciate hearing it! However I've seen SO MANY FAKES of EVERYTHING in this hobby since I joined it a couple of years ago ESPECIALLY HONOR Rings- I can totally understand the motivation once I saw the price tag. I bet every single person on this forum bought at least one fake item and lost hundreds or thousands of dollars to someone generating the pieces as their income stream. I despise that more than anything else!

Do I understand well you question Don Boyle�s certificate?

what is dons opinion cast or die struck, he/s handled all your rings

I did not ask him...

pity,we could all have learned.

Dons finding were that the ring was die pressed.. The skulls were made in batches for stock. The rings might have been made a few at a time then when one was needed it was cut to size , engraved etc. The rings were then hand finished a bit with some kind of tool.

I am open to other methods but not cast. Our own 'Hapur' has made a die and presses his ring like the originals so things like detail aren't a problem with pressing.

I've entertained in the past a method of something like a 'press a penny'. The die was on a maytrix where a rough blank would then be drawn thru it and put the details in.. But all way to complicated. and why complicate?!
I have a period West Wall ring die. I even brought a 1928 school ring die to the MAX to show a few people. Why complicate when you don't have to!

Tell you one thing for sure,,its not cast/lost wax/investment cast! Why? Because if it was there would be no flaws!!

None of us were there,,we'll never know 100% how it was done. Maybe magic?,,maybe just from a couple of simple dies... Fun part is the hunt and then the research....

As you can see, there is nothing complicated to make a lot of rings at once.
I SAY AGAIN - CRAIG GOTTLIEB WAS RIGHT - THE SS TOTENKOPFRING WAS CAST.
Now you can shoot me!

No ones here to shoot anyone, Martin- everyone has an opinion, I respect yours but I won't believe it until I see that tree of period investment cast totenkopfrings. Ill admit Craig's opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight for me, and I guess that's a judgement on my end- but dons reputation and Craig's really can't be compared to each others in this hobby. I've seen this pic before I think Gaspare posted one like it- when illustrating the differences between methods. This picture proves nothing to me except that investment casting is a method of making jewelry. Surely great pieces of art and beautiful jewelry can be and are made his way, but IMHO the period made ss honor ring was not. I most certainly do not doubt mr.boyles COA, but don doesn't believe original rings were investment cast, he believes they were die struck, as do I and many others. Gaspare mentioned our member hapur (Rich)- a tremendous artist from Europe who makes reproduction totenkopfrings that really are second to none- reasonably priced, and made with the traditional die method- here's a link to his website showing many videos "how it's made." Totenkopfrings regardless thanks for the opinion and discussion, it's useful and it's appreciated...glad to have you on the forum, martin! Your HR ring pictures are outstanding!!! Best- Mike

equirhodont,,, that's all it does is make a bunch at a time. But doesn't mean its easier.

What is really easier? lets say after you have a mold for casting,,,and after you have the die for pressing.

*For the cast,,you first have to heat up wax and pour in to a mold.
When dry/done you open and wax weld the model ring to the tree.
It then gets sealed in to a special tube and a refractory plaster is poured in and let harden.
Then you do a burn out,,heat to let the wax melt and run out.
Then you can pour in your molten metal silver, gold etc. Let cool.
Then you cut the piece off and make repairs, clean up the piece a bit,engrave etc.

*Now for the pressing-

You take a pre cut piece of silver and secure in to a press.
You chock up your die.
You press a button.
You then clean up the ring a bit, engrave, round, solder on skull.
SO,,what is easier.?

OK, some questions if you think its cast. Your photo of the tree. It is obvious each size ring would need its own mold. So why is there a seam and separate skull? Why not just one piece?

Also,,think of this:
You are the Gold/Silversmith to the NSDAP. You work is some of the best out there. Everything perfect and beautiful.. Why would you let one of your most prized pieces go out with a defect on it? A flaw? It would be SO simple to fix it on the wax model,,seconds..

I've asked a bunch of old jewelers here in NYCs jewelry district and all gave me the same answer. That during that period in time it was easier,faster,cheaper to press then cast.

Gaspare, I�m not sure the TK ring was cast as a ring, meaybe it was cast as a band, but it was cast. Take a look at other WWII skull rings - they were pressed, no doubt. But each piece is 90% identical. On TK rings is too much differences. And too much tool marks. See pictures below, I can�t see any tool marks, which were finishing the ring. And these rings were pressed in thousands and thousand pieces!

Not to go sideways on the thread- but those are a couple VERY nice skull kantine pieces, i just found the top one's (mit rote augen!) mint unissued brother on Vinnie's table at the max- still with original price tag!!! Yes, pressed of course- but not many survive in stone MINT condition! Nice pieces, Martin- and there easily are so many fakes of that ring! Looks like nice original! Congrats!

equirhodont,,,,,
I asked a couple questions. Do you have an opinion on them?

Another one,, IF you had a bar of pressed silver,,and a bar of cast silver,and started polishing them like crazy. What more than likely would start to happen to each of them??

Thanks, this ring has the price tag, too, but man who found him took it away

Dear Gaspare,
as I wrote - I�m not sure, if it was cast bar or ring. But I think it was the ring.
To adjust to required size is the same procedure - you cut twice by tongs. You don�t need molds in few sizes. What is more comfortable - to join few milimeters, or bend bar by smiting of hammer?
Both manufacturing processes have some pros and cons to determine the correct by that.
Stop think about indolence production and follow the track to the ring.
Why contemporary jewellers are not pressing their rings? Time is money, after all...

during the period big shops had die cutters on staff.. Now they can pay someone very little to play with wax..

The big question remains,,,IF cast, why is there 'die flaws' on the ring? IF cast they would have been maybe only on the first few rings!

Good Question, Gaspare.
If I accept die struck, how I explain tool marks on that ring? I�m little bit crazy from that It looks like repair hot. No sharp contures. Is it repair of die or ring? Have you seen it before?
What I still don�t understand is, if they used more dies, or just only one for 30 and 40 years. Is possible to make the identical die? I mean in pre-war times. Without lasers and computers. Has anybody now, how the dies were made?
Hapur told me he is using still the same die. How many rings we can make from one die?
I want to find right procedure, so I need answers to all question. Thanks for your patience, Gaspare

Another question. We all know this furrow. I can see it on my rings from 1940 date. Is it repair of die? Or brand new die from 1940? I have ring 1939 (but 40 look) without that furrow (on the right). You can also see differences of triangle.
And - you can see hundreds of small holes on the right ring (1939). Looks more like cast. Or is possible to do that by struck, too? I'm out of it on a branch

tool marks are not a problem so not to worry...

Usually back then,,simple as possible -
A master die cutter makes a 'Master' [very hard material]. That is used to make 'working' dies. They make many copies. When it wears or breaks the master comes out of the die room and another working die is made. All the rings lets say from the particular manufacturer will look the same. Some big shops will even sell their working dies.. Many of the ring pattern look exactly the same because they came from the same master!

Thanks, Gaspare. Which material is using for working dies?

couldn't tell you exactly. I'm sure a quick search on google will provide you with answers..
Gotta be something on the soft side.. Guessing maybe a mild steel. They could always harden it [very easy] for working,,besides,,silver is very soft/malleable...

Let's hope the exact methods and materials are lost to time... we certainly don't want any "new" honor rings showing up!!

Fantastic explanations and pictures from Harpur about manufacturing TK rings. This tread should be pinned as it is very interesting